CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. Trump Model Management, LLC

Plaintiff Alexia Palmer filed a putative class action against Trump Model Management, LLC, its president Corinne Nicolas, and CEO John or Jane Doe, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alongside state law claims. Palmer claimed Defendants lured foreign models with false promises, lied to the federal government for H-1B visas, and cheated models out of pay, including herself, paying her only $3,880.75 for three years of work despite a promised annual salary of $75,000. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing the FLSA claim for failure to allege sufficient hours worked, and the RICO claim because the INA provides exclusive administrative remedies for alleged visa application misrepresentations. The state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all federal claims.

FLSARICOINAMotion to DismissH-1B VisasWage DisputeForeign ModelsFraudulent SchemeExclusive Administrative RemediesSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Model Imperial Supply Co. v. Westwind Cosmetics, Inc.

This lawsuit involves Model Imperial Supply Co., Inc. purchasing allegedly counterfeit Drakkar Noir cologne from Westwind Cosmetics, Inc., Barry Timberg, and Josh Widman. Model claims misrepresentation and breach of contract and warranty after discovering the cologne was fake. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing under the Lanham Act for the fourth cause of action and lack of diversity for the first three. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the Lanham Act claim, finding Model lacked standing due to no pecuniary stake or evidence of consumer confusion. However, the court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract, warranty, and negligent misrepresentation claims, citing sufficient diversity and potential personal liability for corporate officers.

Counterfeit GoodsLanham ActFalse AdvertisingBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligent MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentStandingDiversity JurisdictionCorporate Officer Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers v. Great American Industries, Inc.

This diversity action was brought by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, representing members of its former Local 204, against Linear, Inc. and its related corporate entities (Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation). The plaintiff alleged numerous violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement after Linear, Inc. ceased manufacturing operations. The court found Linear, Inc. liable for various employee benefits, including unpaid vacation pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, hospitalization benefits, and pension contributions. Critically, the court determined that Linear, Inc. operated as a mere instrumentality of its parent and grandparent corporations. Consequently, the corporate veil was pierced, holding Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation liable for Linear, Inc.'s labor obligations.

Labor RelationsCollective BargainingCorporate VeilParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityEmployee BenefitsPension DisputeVacation Pay ClaimsSupplemental Unemployment BenefitsFraudulent Transfers
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Case No. ADJ5621413
Regular
Sep 15, 2016

LORI RENFRO vs. SUMMIT COUNSELING AND EDUCATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND

This case involves applicant Lori Renfro's claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits following a work injury. The WCJ initially awarded benefits, finding the industrial injury's standalone disability exceeded the 35% threshold. The SIBTF appealed, arguing the injury's standalone disability was below 35% and the prior disability should be measured at the time of the subsequent injury. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding the WCJ erred by not properly applying the 35% threshold for the subsequent injury alone. The matter is remanded to determine the applicability of Labor Code section 4751(a) and to re-evaluate the 70% combined disability threshold, measuring prior disability as it existed before the subsequent injury.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundSIBTFpermanent disability thresholdapportionmentLabor Code section 4751combined disabilityprior disabilitysubsequent injuryvocational expertQME
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kent v. Cuomo

Petitioners, state employees typically ineligible for overtime, challenged a determination by the State Budget Director regarding overtime compensation following Hurricane Sandy. The Budget Director's bulletin authorized overtime for hours worked beyond 47.5 per week, rather than the 40-hour threshold sought by petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Budget Director was statutorily required to compensate for all hours over 40. The Supreme Court partially dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The appellate court deferred to the Budget Director's interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6), finding the 47.5-hour threshold was not irrational or unreasonable given the agency's expertise and consistent past application. The court also held that employer respondents did not act irrationally in not requesting compensation below the 47.5-hour threshold, as this authority rests solely with the Budget Director.

Overtime CompensationExtreme EmergencyHurricane SandyState EmployeesCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionNormal Workweek47.5-Hour ThresholdCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. ADJ5774907
Regular
Jan 15, 2014

ROBERT PORTER vs. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order that dismissed the case from the trial calendar. The defendant seeks to litigate the statute of limitations as a threshold issue, arguing it was improperly denied. The Board found that statute of limitations is a threshold issue that can be bifurcated and that the prior denial of a dismissal petition was procedural, not on the merits. The case is returned to the trial level for proceedings on the statute of limitations.

Petition for RemovalStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionRes JudicataThreshold IssueLabor Code Section 5405Affirmative DefenseBifurcationDeclaration of ReadinessOff Calendar
References
3
Case No. ADJ9845740
Regular
Dec 18, 2019

RICHARD OKUNIEWICZ vs. CHRISTOFFERSON TRANSPORTATION, QBE-PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an employer's petition for removal challenging a judge's order denying a motion to compel an in-person vocational evaluation. The Appeals Board denied the petition, treating it as a reconsideration request because the underlying order resolved threshold issues. Although the decision was final regarding threshold matters, the Board reviewed the discovery dispute under the extraordinary removal standard. The majority found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from denying the in-person evaluation, as a remote evaluation was deemed sufficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderMedical-Legal EvaluationCompelSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueVocational Evaluation
References
7
Case No. ADJ10948281
Regular
Mar 06, 2023

HELODORO ZAMORA PEREZ vs. RMT CONTRACTING, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Helodoro Zamora Perez against RMT Contracting, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed. The WCAB explained that a decision resolving a "threshold" issue is a final order, and any challenges must be made through a timely petition for reconsideration. Since the WCJ's decision addressed a threshold issue, it was a final order subject to timely reconsideration. Furthermore, the WCAB stated that even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueFinal DecisionInterlocutory IssuesRemoval StandardExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdequate RemedyWCAB
References
4
Case No. ADJ2671439 (AHM 0097527)
Regular
Jul 16, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCRMA

This case concerns an applicant injured while employed as a utility worker who sustained industrial injuries to his back, pelvis, and internal systems. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the employer's credit for benefits paid against a civil settlement, specifically amending the language to include benefits paid "directly to or on behalf of" the applicant. Ultimately, the employer must pay benefits until a $2,750,000 threshold is met before asserting a $500,000 credit, with all benefits paid to or for the applicant counting towards this threshold.

ReconsiderationDowney Unified School DistrictCid's TruckingUtility WorkerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryPelvis InjuryInternal Systems InjuryNegligenceOrdinary Care
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 356 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational